Norberto Meijome wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:38:21 +0200 "Ivan Voras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:BTW, I thought of another problem scenario. The user installs port M, and it brings dependencies D1, D2, and D3. Then the user installs port N which alsohas port D2 as a dependency.Port N then won't install D2 as it already exists. The user can rollback [N], then rollback [M+D1+D2+D3]. Trying to roll back back [M+D1+D2+D3] before [N] will show the user a message about dependencies.Shouldn't you be able to request rollback [M + D1 + D2+ D3 ] , but have the dependency of {something else not M} on D2 be detected, and therefore D2 *not* uninstalled?you'd end up then with M, D1, D3 removed , D2 still installed (as N needs it), and a message saying 'D2 was not removed due to existing dependencies : N '.
Yes, it's a good idea.
As a matter of fact, i don't really see why we need a transaction system to
have an option to {pkg management of choice} to uninstall {unwanted_pkg} and
all other dependencies ONLY needed by {unwanted_pkg}. Anyway, pkg_cutleaves
does part of it...but it'd be much handier, i think, to handle it @ the
uninstall time.
And since we are just wishing for things, It'd be nice to have an opportunity
to back off from a install/remove after calculating dependencies, such as that
provided by yum (it shows everything it will do and asks for confirmation
before proceeding. )
I like that in yum and have planned to include something like this. I'm trying to decide should it be the default or not - for now, it probably will be :)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
